Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5212 readers

587 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

The science of protests: demonstrations are on the rise, and scientists are revealing which types work best (www.nature.com)

submitted 4 months ago by 0x815@feddit.org to c/climate@slrpnk.net

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/460748

Scientist Erica Chenoweth, who studies civil resistance at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge in the U.S., showed that every movement that mobilized at least 3.5% of a population was successful. This led to what’s known as the 3.5% rule — that protests require this level of participation to ensure change.

But the figure can be misleading, Chenoweth cautions. A much larger number of people are probably supporting a successful revolution even if they aren’t visibly protesting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 30 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

TLDR:

Protests with specific, cohesive demands achieve more measurable results
Disruption doesn't sour public opinion toward a cause, but it's not clear if it's more effective than non-disruptive methods
Authority suppressing a protest makes it more effective, especially if the protest was nonviolent

(Edited spelling)

[–] Zacryon@lemmy.wtf 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Disruption doesn't sour public opinion toward a cause, but it's not clear if it's more effective than noon-disruptive methods

Meh. I hoped there would be news on that. I'm following and reading through various materials on the topic of "effective protest", especially regarding the disruptive forms. And it seems as always: not enough data to draw conclusions or contradicting data.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 12 points 4 months ago

Basically, the OP article said that the main vehicles by which protest can drive social change are twofold:

At a small scale, by galvanizing public opinion one way or another. A violent or disruptive protest can make the voters think the protestors are the “bad guys”, or a protest without clear cohesive demands can be too abstract to produce any real change, but a clear and cohesive protest can induce people to vote for the side they see advocated for, especially if there’s a violent police response to paint a clear picture of the protestors as the good guys and the establishment as the bad guys. That perception can swing elections.
At a large scale, the awareness that there are millions of people ready to get in the streets for an issue can cause existing leaders to react differently on it, regardless of any voting in the equation.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Disruption doesn't sour public opinion toward a cause, but it's not clear if it's more effective than non-disruptive methods.

Have they considered the Holy Week Uprising getting the Fair Housing Act passed within the span of a week?

MLK assassination riots on wikipedia